A Father in Principle

When the public life of the father is identical his private life (with the obvious exception of his intimate life) then he becomes a true example of a man of principle. When my decisions made when no one is looking are congruent with those made under scrutiny, then I demonstrate what it is to live my own life and not a persona. When I do not live a persona, then I will have nothing to maintain when I am with my daughter in public. When I can be the same with my daughter whether we are at home or in the store, then she has no reason to question who she is. This is because I have not changed who she is or how I interact with her in accordance with the environment. But, when a parent chooses to be easily embarrassed by their child's behavior, that indicates that there is much they are hiding about who they are in private.

A man who is different in public than he is in private is not a man of principle, but a man of persona. The man of persona makes his decisions based on his ego. From this position he only lives according to what makes him feel superior in the very moment over another human being. Such is not a free man, but one captive to his impulse. He cannot act at his own will, but must obey the need to subjugate those around him. This need cuts him off from the knowledge that he is not above them. It cuts him off from his identity.

A truly free man has no need for subjects. He lives, and lets live. He has no need for obedience, therefore he does not obey his impulses. The truly free man rules over his impulses, not with an iron fist, but with an open hand that gives freedom to himself, to those around him . . . to his children.

I can curse, but I need not obey that impulse. I can argue, but I need not obey that impulse. I can scream, but I need not obey that impulse. I can violate, but I need not obey that impulse. Why? Because I am free. I do not subjugate myself, I allow myself to live in such a way that is in congruence with my value structure. As such, I live by example a demonstration of what it is to truly be free. And children do what they see.

I weigh the differences between the options of which action to take when my child challenges me. If I react in anger, I demonstrate fear of her autonomy. I show her that I can be assailed by her individuality, and that I am unable to withstand such a passive attack. I display weakness. If I react authoritatively and demand unquestioning obedience, then I display the same weaknesses, and I show that I am subject to my impulses. I show her that I am not free. And children do what they see.

I don't want her to live as a slave to her impulses, and I know that every action I take in the now will ripple across time and create waves in her later years. I must consider how I will be her future, because I know that she is not mine. The relationship between the parent and child is for the child, not the parent. Such an idea looks to the future, but to say that the child is the parent's future looks to the past. The child is not the parent's future, such an idea destroys the future – and destroys the child.